More people are underemployed, unemployed or have simple given up looking than every before. The context is that we've never, in the history of the United States had this many people in dire straits. That's the context.

If you're cool with the status quo, that's OK. I expect more from our President. I expect more for America.

Why does political discourse always have to be so damn inane? Why can't anybody let the other side have anything? It is absolutely NOT a fundamental tenet of debate that any time you concede any point to the other side you inherently lose. The reality is that when you admit they have some things right it makes you look more credible and genuine when you do attack specific issues.

GOP people - can you at least concede that the stock market has improved, so at least the money seems to be moving a little more freely than it was 4 years ago?

And Democrats, can you guys stop hiding behind published unemployment rates and admit that a big part of reduced unemployment IS that a number of people have stopped seeking work? I think in an honest moment the administration would privately admit that job creation has been fairly stagnant and not what they'd hoped for.

Back to the Republicans - can you concede that it's not 100% Obama's fault that jobs are down? And Dems, can you admit it's not all Bush? Frankly, the economic growth during the 1990s was unsustainable and generated a bubble that was bound to burst at some point. Give Bush some blame, give Obama some blame, give the free market a bigger share than either of them. Everything bad is not the fault of the President.

Also, can we stop expecting our candidates to spew facts and numbers at debates, and expecting all their figures to be perfect? It's unreasonable for the President to know everything about everything. This is a big country. That's why they have a cabinet. For his first 5 or 6 years in office Clinton would freely admit he didn't know jack about foreign policy, so he surrounded himself with good foreign policy people to make recommendations and explain on a basic level what was going on and what he needed to do as far as foreign policy was concerned. Dems loved him for that at the time. Now they think it's ridiculous that Romney's not an expert. Come on.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/23/2012 7:10:00 PM (view original):Why does political discourse always have to be so damn inane? Why can't anybody let the other side have anything? It is absolutely NOT a fundamental tenet of debate that any time you concede any point to the other side you inherently lose. The reality is that when you admit they have some things right it makes you look more credible and genuine when you do attack specific issues.

GOP people - can you at least concede that the stock market has improved, so at least the money seems to be moving a little more freely than it was 4 years ago?

And Democrats, can you guys stop hiding behind published unemployment rates and admit that a big part of reduced unemployment IS that a number of people have stopped seeking work? I think in an honest moment the administration would privately admit that job creation has been fairly stagnant and not what they'd hoped for.

Back to the Republicans - can you concede that it's not 100% Obama's fault that jobs are down? And Dems, can you admit it's not all Bush? Frankly, the economic growth during the 1990s was unsustainable and generated a bubble that was bound to burst at some point. Give Bush some blame, give Obama some blame, give the free market a bigger share than either of them. Everything bad is not the fault of the President.

Also, can we stop expecting our candidates to spew facts and numbers at debates, and expecting all their figures to be perfect? It's unreasonable for the President to know everything about everything. This is a big country. That's why they have a cabinet. For his first 5 or 6 years in office Clinton would freely admit he didn't know jack about foreign policy, so he surrounded himself with good foreign policy people to make recommendations and explain on a basic level what was going on and what he needed to do as far as foreign policy was concerned. Dems loved him for that at the time. Now they think it's ridiculous that Romney's not an expert. Come on.

This is by far the most compelling post you've ever made.

I tip my hat to you sir, and wish others had the sense that you show in these sentiments.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/23/2012 7:10:00 PM (view original):Why does political discourse always have to be so damn inane? Why can't anybody let the other side have anything? It is absolutely NOT a fundamental tenet of debate that any time you concede any point to the other side you inherently lose. The reality is that when you admit they have some things right it makes you look more credible and genuine when you do attack specific issues.

GOP people - can you at least concede that the stock market has improved, so at least the money seems to be moving a little more freely than it was 4 years ago?

And Democrats, can you guys stop hiding behind published unemployment rates and admit that a big part of reduced unemployment IS that a number of people have stopped seeking work? I think in an honest moment the administration would privately admit that job creation has been fairly stagnant and not what they'd hoped for.

Back to the Republicans - can you concede that it's not 100% Obama's fault that jobs are down? And Dems, can you admit it's not all Bush? Frankly, the economic growth during the 1990s was unsustainable and generated a bubble that was bound to burst at some point. Give Bush some blame, give Obama some blame, give the free market a bigger share than either of them. Everything bad is not the fault of the President.

Also, can we stop expecting our candidates to spew facts and numbers at debates, and expecting all their figures to be perfect? It's unreasonable for the President to know everything about everything. This is a big country. That's why they have a cabinet. For his first 5 or 6 years in office Clinton would freely admit he didn't know jack about foreign policy, so he surrounded himself with good foreign policy people to make recommendations and explain on a basic level what was going on and what he needed to do as far as foreign policy was concerned. Dems loved him for that at the time. Now they think it's ridiculous that Romney's not an expert. Come on.

I can get behind this.

It's difficult to be rational, though, when one side (generalizing here) argues that Obama is the most radical, extreme, leftist, socialist, muslimist, kenyanist president in the history of the united states since jimmy carter. PraiseLordJesusReagan.

And you think the other side is being entirely reasonable with its representation of Mitt Romney? At least nobody officially associated with the Romney campaign - or, for that matter, the McCain campaign - ever publicly questioned Obama's citizenship or birth. The Obama campaign won't stop harping on the fact that as a private businessman Romney invested in foreign competitors to US companies and companies that outsourced jobs. They know this will resonate with the unemployed, but they also know that it's completely irrelevant. He did those things as a private business person. He had responsibilities to his investors; he had one job at that time, which was to protect the interests of those investors and make them money, and he attempted to do that. That can absolutely involve outsourcing in today's economy. That doesn't make him unpatriotic, it just makes him good at his job. Would it look great for a presidential campaign if he'd refused to invest in foreign companies? Maybe. But if his job is protecting American interests, I see no reason to assume he won't do his best at that job.

The fact is that I'd rather have both campaigns spend at least 60% of advertising money on positive advertising, IE promotion of their proposed agendas and vision for America's future. Instead we seem to be at about 80% attack ads from both sides, maybe even worse from the Romney campaign. My whole point in the opening to this thread is that the Kerry campaign proved fairly clearly that even an unpopular president can maintain office if he isn't challenged by a clear, well-articulated plan and vision. Romney should be spending a lot more time talking about a tangible vision. Obama as well. 4 years ago Obama had a clear vision for this country and inspired a lot of people. Now all he wants to do is suggest that the other guy would be worse than he is. The 2008 Obama campaign was about as positive as any in recent memory. Not that they didn't go after McCain and try to connect him to Bush, but that was definitely secondary. I never liked most of Obama's plans, never thought he'd be effective until he learned to work within the system, and to some degree I was absolutely right about that. But he's hit his stride now, and he's done a few things, and should emphasize those and how he plans to extend them. He probably shouldn't talk about Obamacare, since most people don't really like it.

And here's another thing. Republicans, Obama is not a socialist. He's just not. But Democrats, can you at least face the fact that he would like to have more of a Welfare State? I'd say Obamacare alone is proof positive of that. And then face up to the fact that the Welfare States in Europe are, for the most part, struggling mightily economically. Look at the amount of hours an average French worker expects to be paid for in a year - it's not a figure to strive for. Certainly you're not going to fix the economy by increasing the size and number of entitlement programs. That absolutely slows growth and there's a wealth of empirical evidence to back me up on this. I absolutely do not want to move in that direction, but I'm not going to make any sort of definitive statement that it is right or wrong to move in the direction of the European model with higher taxes and more insurances and protections. What I will say definitively is that it's intellectually dishonest to move in that direction and then pay lip service to making improving the economy a priority.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/23/2012 7:17:00 PM (view original):He should quietly walk away and let someone else take care of it. You know, like he said he would.

Eh, I really think the post-2008 Republican response to this recession ignores the real problem at best and is counter productive at worst. The recession wasn't caused by high taxes or excessive regulation or the debt/deficit. All of those things are secondary to a collapse in demand. Lowering taxes is stimulative, but if you make the deficit priority number 1, cutting taxes becomes impossible without cutting spending, which erodes demand further.

Obama may have not brought us back to full employment (~5% unemployment) but at least he hasn't completely buried his head in the sand when it comes to what caused the downturn and what will eventually get us out of it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/23/2012 7:17:00 PM (view original):He should quietly walk away and let someone else take care of it. You know, like he said he would.

Eh, I really think the post-2008 Republican response to this recession ignores the real problem at best and is counter productive at worst. The recession wasn't caused by high taxes or excessive regulation or the debt/deficit. All of those things are secondary to a collapse in demand. Lowering taxes is stimulative, but if you make the deficit priority number 1, cutting taxes becomes impossible without cutting spending, which erodes demand further.

Obama may have not brought us back to full employment (~5% unemployment) but at least he hasn't completely buried his head in the sand when it comes to what caused the downturn and what will eventually get us out of it.